Alfonso Cuaron's new film ("Gravity") to feature 17 minute opening long take

Same here, this might end up being more satisfying then promethius. I'm saying that because it seems like the more big and hyped up a film is these days the more like it is to be a let down. it's a trend I see more and more...ie avatar, dark of the moon, ghost protocol.

I just hope Clooney won't be wearing his Armani sport jacket out in deep space like every other film he's in.

Kind of hard to get excited about that when you've seen "The Russian Ark", which is an entire movie in one take :-)

It's hard for me to get excited by anything starring that block of wood Clooney.

Let' get real here...Clooney is an actor who has done excellent work in excellent movies.
Whether or not one "approves" of the real person, is beside the point.

Do I have to remind anyone this forum is about the fake world of MOVIES....

Okay- I should've added that ol' standby IMO. Just like you should have too, Oink. And as far as that "approves" stuff, I don't care what the guy does in the bedroom, boardroom or voting booth, my opinion of the man on the topic at hand is based on what I've seen him do on the screen. And what I've seen him do IMO, is quite lacking. So please accept that and quit fishing for ulterior motives for not particularly caring for someone as an actor.

I just (re)watched Syrianna, and he definitely does a good job in that one.

He is also great in Up in the Air, and O Brother Where Art Thou.

Clooney does tend to coast in most movies, doing pretty much the standard "Clooney" performance, but he most certainly has done work that deserves respect.

Fair enough....
I guess you just haven't seen much of the guy's work.
Otherwise, you wouldn't have a rational basis for saying what you did.

I've seen enough of the guy's work to know that if he's in a movie, that his mere presence isn't enough to get me thinking "oh boy, Clooney's in this! Gotta see it!" IMO, the guy coasts along on his soap stud looks and "easy" charm. For a guy who lives the life of an international playboy, he sure doesn't exude much charisma on screen to me. Smaller than life. So I guess it's different strokes people. Some actors, you know what to expect and it turns you on. Great. I'm the same way. Clooney just ain't my cup'o tea. Oh Brother is the one allowance I'll bow to that he was particularly good in, but with the Coen's directing him, his penchant for coasting wasn't likely to happen. That's rational enough for me.

I think his performance in that movie was due more to the very broad character he got to play than any particular directing acumen from the Coens. He got to let it all hang out, and he was hi-larious.

Clooney can be quite good when he gets a juicy role, and I find I almost always enjoy his performances even when he's just playing Clooney. "The American" and "Michael Clayton" were both elevated by his presence, IMO. I haven't seen "The Descendants" yet, but word of mouth on his performance was generally positive.

One thing I'd like to see him play is a seriously villainous bad guy. Actors tend to love those roles and it would be out-of-character for him. I don't think he's done one of those yet, has he?

Clooney did well in Solaris and Three Kings as well IMO,although Solaris was a crappy film.
He did play a villainous bad guy in: From Dusk till Dawn.

I was thinking something along those lines also. He gives decent performances but as characters played by George Clooney instead of George Clooney becoming the characters - that's as best as I can say it. Compare him to the likes of Gary Oldman, Willem Dafoe, Martin Sheen, and others that actually become the character they play and don't use trademark mannerisms, etc. for every role.

larry

Other crappy actors known for mainly just playing versions of themselves on screen:

Cary Grant
Jimmy Stewart
Clark Gable
Henry Fonda
Gary Cooper
Paul Newman
Robert Redford
Jack Nicholson

What a bunch of horrible, no-talent hacks that nobody would ever want to watch in a movie, right?

This conversation implies there are 2 types of actors: chameleons and non-chameleons.
Chameleons = Gary Oldham, Daniel Day-Lewis, Tim Nelson
Nons = Sly Stallone, Mel Gibson, Joe Pesci

Anyone wanna make a list?

Okay I'll play. And before anyone gets too defensive, this is of course just my opinion.

Cary Grant- Had personality to go with supernatural good looks. Was the perfect combination of polished English gentleman with a likable cockney inner core. A man we all hold on a pedestal because he's someone we would aspire to be like. And he made his share of movies that are considered classics.

Jimmy Stewart- Yeah, he had mannerisms. Mannerism's that could adapt to a number of disparate characters. The post war years gave him an edge that only made him better. Demons for better or worse can do that to a man, and for Stewart, it only made him more interesting. He was always likable either way, playing light or dark. And he has a great film resume.

Clark Gable- A mans man for an actor. Not the best "actor" in any sense, but commanded the screen. Not as high a batting average as far as classic movies as some on this list, but the few he's instantly remembered for are held in such high regard, he'll always be in the conversation of greatest "movie stars."

Henry Fonda- If you do something well, there are worse things than getting typecast as the stalwart voice of reason. But he did have screen presence, and when allowed to stretch his acting legs, like in OUATITW, he really showed that he could play anything.

Gary Cooper- Not a great actor, but a great movie star. He knew the limits of his range, and never overreached himself. Being blessed with good looks didn't hurt him any.

Paul Newman- Good looks and charisma can gloss over a lot of deficiencies. I'm probably in the minority, but I never thought he was all that great of an actor, although there are movies of his that I enjoy. I thought he got better with age, however. Regardless of what I may personally think, his catalog is considered strong.

Robert Redford- Oh boy. This guy (along with Warren Beatty), is one of the one's I just can't figure out. Good looks, a faithful female fan base, and the right politics can carry you far in Hollywood, I suppose. And honestly, the guys resume has a lot of popular (especially for their time) movies, but how many of them are really considered classics?

Jack Nicholson- Early on, the greatest combination "actor" and "movie star" there ever was. Later on became a parody of himself, but still has his moments. Too bad the general public prefers the over the top, cartoon Jack to the more serious Jack of old. Plenty of good stuff on his resume.

So there.

Published at: May 04, 2012 3:13:32 AM CDT

SPOILER ALERT !!

Hey folks, Harry here... This film doesn't hit theaters until November 21st, 2012... GRAVITY is the next brilliant work of Alfonso Cuaron. In the first paragraph, Stanley Boobrick, our intrepid spy, tells us that this was a very early and incomplete work in progress. In the second paragraph, he tels you that this is "Next Level ****!" and by that, I think he means **** in the awesome mind blowingly cool manner, not as in something that should be flushed. In the third paragraph he tells us the story is profoundly simple, then begins to elaborate - if you want - read the first two paragraphs, it'll get you pumped, but if you're someone that wants to completely go in cold - and honestly - it's a Cuaron film - trust him. Now for the rest of you, I'm going to continue (spoiler free). In the fourth paragraph, Boobrick compares the experience of watching this to ENTER THE VOID - which is amazing. In his final paragraph where he talks about how cruel it was to see this film incomplete, going from pristine space shots that made you feel as though you were there - and then the 16-bit pre-vis style effects - but I would have killed to see this. As is - this is the film of the Fall that I'm very giddy to know is this good for just one of you. This is a very positive test screening review - and I absolutely do not believe it is a PLANT. Now - here ya go - if you want to know SOME of the movie, but doesn't give the big "what happens" of the movie. So read if you must, but right now, I'm dying to see this!


I just got out of a test screening of Alfonso Cuaron's new film Gravity. It was a work-in-progress print, with only about half of the shots having fully completed special effects. There were lots of unrendered 3D cubes, pre-visualizations & wires holding up Sandra Bullock's ass to make it float. It felt a little like being shown 2001 and then during the Journey to the Unknown an iTunes Visualizer pops up, & they say You get the idea right? Or like watching James Franco raise Andy Serkis from infancy when you first watch Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes. I feel justified in saying I've seen Gravity, but I haven't SEEN GRAVITY, if you know what I'm saying. But I've seen enough. Here's my review of what I did see: Gravity is a ****ing masterpiece.

This is not just next level ****, this is several levels ahead of next level ****, & quite possibly the highest level **** you could possibly make. This is like if Avatar had been released in 1927 a week after The Jazz Singer. People won't know how to comprehend what they are seeing. In short, Gravity genuinely makes you feel like you have been to space. It really, really does. And guess what? It's beautiful, and awe-inspiring, and profound (and a little scary too), everything you thought it would be since you first thought about going to space when you were a kid. The movie exploits dreams it knows every sentient being has had, using the best special effects I have personally ever seen. I honestly don't know how you could enhance a cinematic experience more. I kept waiting for a cameo from the Tupac hologram.

The story is profoundly simple. Sandra Bullock's space ship is destroyed by space debris & she has to figure out how to get back to Earth. It's told in real time without feeling like a gimmick & it has all the ludicrously long shots we've been promised. The movie never feels like Phonebooth in Space!, because the one-location in real time' aspect is vital to the story. The second after your space shuttle is hit by space debris you better believe every second of the next hour and a half counts (we'll all know this first hand once Richard Branson gets his **** together). Don't worry, I won't give away the one spoiler in the movie, i.e. Will she make it?, cause that's the only question you ask yourself the entire ****ing movie. Cauron does a masterful job of setting up the impossible stakes & giving you hope & hopelessness at the same time. You have hope because you don't believe a Hollywood movie studio would let Sandra Bullock burn up reentering our atmosphere (they paid a lot of money for her).

But by the way the film is shot, you feel hopeless. It has some of the best uses of first person POV shots I've ever seen, making you feel like you too are hovering right over the Earth, so close yet so far away. Other than Enter the Void, I don't think I've ever felt more physically embodied as an onscreen character. It's not POV the whole time though, Cauron breaks it up & often utilizes his signature roaming-cameraman-who-never-cuts' technique, which is very effective when there's no gravity & for the race-against-the-clockiness' of the story. However, some people might end up saying that Gravity ends up being too light on story & is just an expensive space roller coaster ride, Space Mountain: The Movie' if you will. But those people would be wrong, stupid & ungrateful. Gravity is an important & subtle character study wrapped up in the guise of the most technologically advanced film of the new millennium. Sandra Bullock's character has no family down on Earth. No friends. Her job is up in space. She's struggling to get back to survive, but in truth, she doesn't have much to live for down on that planet, so why even go through the effort? To me the film is about apathy and isolation. It's about people today not knowing why they should be excited about living but only knowing they don't want to die. It's about looking at your own insignificance in the universe (or on Earth, or at your job, or at your school, etc.) & becoming empowered by it instead of defeated. And most of all, it's about seeing what it would be like to float through space like an astronaut (spoiler: it's fun).

It was amazing to see an early cut of this film but it was cruel and unusual to flip back and forth between the pristinely realized space footage and the 16-bit pre-viz stuff. This cut still gets my ultra-rare 11 out of 10 rating though, & it can only go up after I see the 100% completed version. Congratulations Mr.Cuaron, you sir have changed the game.

Hope that review is actually real.

Here it is the new trailer...
What a dumb trailer...doesn't show nothing
Edited by zoey67 - 5/10/13 at 10:06am

Wow. I said that A YEAR AGO! Good Lord.

Lol that screenshot looks like a trailer for a live-action Toy Story.

Edited by simontan - 5/11/13 at 7:12am

Buzz is probably the better actor.

I never noticed the resemblance until seeing those sise-by-side pics.

i thought this movie was supposed to come out last year? Just now heard about this film.....SO october of this year for release?

Wait this is really strange. I just watched the trailer again and I swear the 1st time I watched it had nothing just Clooney drifting in space hence the stmt about the trailer showing nothing. This time I see him and her out in space and the thing explodes causing them to lose touch.

What are we drinking?

vitamin water

I was just about to reply to your earlier comment, "I hope you are kidding."